MacLeod v Hamiliton

SUMMARY -

MacLeod v. Hamilton,

Summary: Where a local authority makes a traffic regulation order pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 prohibiting the parking of motor-vehicles in a certain street, an offence is not committed by parking in that street unless notice of the prohibition is given to the public in the form of a traffic sign within the definition of the Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 51.




QUOTE
MacLeod v. Hamilton
High Court of Justiciary
HCJ Appeal
(The Lord Justice-General (Clyde), Lords Carmont and Migdale)
25 June 1965

Article 7 of the Edinburgh Corporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964, made under section 26 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, provided that no person should cause or permit any vehicle to wait in the streets specified in the Fifth Schedule in the Order between certain hours on certain days. Section 26 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, provides that a person who uses a vehicle in contravention of a traffic regulation order shall be liable to certain penalties. Section 29 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, provides that where a traffic regulation order is made by the local authority the local authority shall publish in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate minister notice of the making and effect of the order. Regulation 15 of the Traffic Regulations Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961, provided, inter alia, that after an order had been made by a council, the council should take all steps which were reasonably practicable to erect traffic signs on or near the roads affected by the order. A motorist left her motor car in a street subject to the provisions of the Edinburgh Corporation Traffic Order, 1964, for a period of twenty minutes at a time when no waiting was allowed. Edinburgh Corporation had erected signs in the street which did not conform to the requirements of section 51 of the 1960 Act.

Held, that the Edinburgh Corporation Traffic Order, 1964, was not valid as traffic signs complying with the requirements of section 51 of the 1960 Act had not been erected by the Corporation and, accordingly, that no offence had been committed.

Stated Case: Mary Elizabeth Hamilton was charged in the Sheriff Court of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh at the instance of Angus MacLeod, Procurator-Fiscal, Edinburgh, upon a complaint on 12th November 1964, between the hours 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in High Riggs she caused permitted a vehicle 9016 SC to wait; contrary to article (7) of the Edinburgh Corporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964, made under sections 26 and 27 of the Road Traffic 1960, and to section 26 (7) of the said Act.

The accused pleaded not guilty and evidence was led.

On 6th April 1965, the Sheriff-Substitute (Cohen) found the accused not guilty.
The sheriff-substitute appended the following note:--
It was argued for the complainer, in the first place, that, since the offence consisted in a contravention of an order, and not merely in failure to obey a traffic sign, as for example under section 14 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the question whether a sign conformed to a particular design or even whether a sign had been erected, was immaterial. This argument, if pressed to its logical conclusion, and the complainer did not shrink from so contending, would mean that even if there were no signs at all in the Tollcross area, nonetheless, any motorist who allowed his car to wait there (unless he could bring himself within one of the excepted categories) could be successfully prosecuted for a contravention of the order although he was totally unaware of the existence of the order. The implications of this are not, however, confined to the Tollcross area; a similar situation would arise wherever a council, having made an order, then failed to erect any signs. The prospect for a considerable proportion of the citizens of this country would be indeed alarming, since unless they had read on one particular day the notice inserted in a local newspaper or in the Edinburgh Gazette in terms of Regulation 15 of the Statutory Instrument No. 669 of 1961, they would be committing an offence of which they knew nothing. In short, the question comes to be whether mens rea is essential to a contravention of the present order.

The law regarding mens rea in relation to a statutory offence was stated by Lord Normand in Mitchell v. Morrison, 1938 J.C. 64, at page 71 (1938 S.L.T. 201) in these terms: \"We are dealing with a statutory offence, not with a common law crime, and there is no novelty in holding that a statutory offence may be committed although there is a complete absence of mens rea. Nevertheless, the burden lies on the Crown of showing that a statute imposes an absolute obligation, breach of which constitutes an offence and subjects to a penalty one who is entirely free from all moral culpability... .Yet the Crown must always show that the language of the statute is, without distortion or strain, habile to impose an absolute obligation.\" The present order was made by Edinburgh Corporation by virtue of regulations made by the Secretary of State and set forth in Statutory Instrument No. 669 of 1961. Regulation 15 (c) sets out the steps which a council shall take \"forthwith\" to erect signs. If the complainer's contention that no signs are necessary is sound then this part of the regulation can amount to little more than a pious hope that the council will do so. I do not think the regulation should be interpreted in that way and, in my opinion, the regulation simply means what it says, namely, that adequate information is to be given to persons using the road and that is to be done by the erection of signs. This is quite the opposite to an absolute obligation and I think the Crown has failed to show that the words used in the regulation are habile to impose such an obligation.

It was next maintained for the complainer that, even if the erection of signs was a necessary prerequisite to a contravention of the order, then the signs (productions Nos. 7 and 8) were sufficient, because, since this was not an area which had been created in virtue of an order made by the Secretary of State, the provisions of section 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which relate to traffic signs, did apply to the Tollcross area. Accordingly, no *306 obligation was laid upon the Corporation to erect the type of signs set out in the regulations which the Secretary of State has made under the powers granted to him by section 51 or by section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, now repealed.

I have already referred to Regulation 15 of the Statutory Instrument No. 669. I do not think that the word \"requisite\" as it is used in sub-paragraph (c) refers to the type of signs to be erected, it seems to me to refer to the positions in which the signs are to be placed. Therefore, the discretion which is given to a council by the use of the words \"considers requisite\" does not extend to signs. The complainer does not, therefore, obtain any support from Regulation 15. Section 51 of the 1960 Act defines the words \"traffic signs\". As I read this section it does not apply only to traffic signs which have been erected under an order made by the Secretary of State. The section appears to me to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying any object (traffic sign) for conveying to traffic warnings, information, etc. The section is not restricted to enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying restrictions or prohibitions, he already has those powers by virtue of other sections in the Act. The Secretary of State has in fact made regulations which specify in some detail the type of sign which may be erected. These regulations are to be found in Statutory Instrument No. 13 of 1957 as amended by Nos. 2149 and 2150 of the same year.

Regulation 8 in No. 13 deals in sub-paragraph (c) with what may be described as \"prohibitory\" signs. There is nothing in Regulation 8 which suggests that it is to apply only to signs erected where the Secretary of State has made the order, nor does Part III of the First Schedule, where the various signs are set out in diagrams. Direction three of No. 13 only permitted signs of the type illustrated in Part III to be erected at sites approved in writing by the Secretary of State, but this was soon amended by No. 2150, the effect of which was to permit certain signs in Part III to be placed at sites without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State provided that they were not placed there to indicate the effect of an order made by him. This in fact seems to envisage the kind of situation which has arisen in the present case because this is not an area in regard to which the Secretary of State has made an order. But there is nothing in any of the foregoing regulations which says that a council, or indeed any other body at all, has a discretion to erect any kind of sign they wish. It therefore seems to me that the words \"every traffic sign\" in Regulation 8 mean that unless an exception can be found every sign must comply with the requirements specified. I can find no such exception.

Regulation 9 of No. 13 allows, what are described as, \"permitted variants\"on certain signs. At the very best for the complainer only sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) could possibly be said to apply to the signs at High Riggs. Sub-paragraph (a) however, refers to numerals and the variation in the present case is much more than that. So far as sub-paragraph (b) is concerned it permits the wording to be varied, but the variation is allowed only with reference to certain signs identified by their particular numbers. The signs erected by the Corporation do not appear to be identified with any of the listed signs and no power is given to vary unlisted signs. The present signs are not, therefore, signs upon which any variation is allowed.

Finally, it was argued that the Secretary of State, acting presumably under Regulation 4 of No. 13, had allowed signs of the \"C\" type (productions Nos. 1 and 2) to be erected for the George Street area, accordingly this type having received authorisation for one area it could be erected in another area. This argument seems to me to fail for two reasons. Firstly, because there is nothing to show that the authorisation for George Street was intended to be authorisation for the whole of the City of Edinburgh. There was no evidence at all to enable such an inference to be established. Secondly, it fails, because the High Riggs signs are, in fact, different from those authorised for George Street. The words used are not the same and the High Riggs signs have the loose boards superimposed upon them.

For the foregoing reasons, I have reached the conclusion that there has been no contravention of the Tollcross Order and, accordingly, the accused is not guilty.

The procurator-fiscal appealed to the High Court of Justiciary by stated case.

The stated case set forth, inter alia:

The following facts were admitted or proved:--
1. Production No. 5 is a Certified Copy of the Edinburgh Corporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964.
2. The said Order applies to the whole street in High Riggs.
3. The photograph, production No. 7, is a photograph of the sign erected on the South side of High Riggs at the east end thereof.
4. The photograph, production No. 8, is a photograph of the sign erected on the North side of High Riggs at the east end thereof.
5. The photograph, production No. 10, is a photograph of the east end of High Riggs.
6. The photograph, production No. 9, is a photograph of the sign erected in Shandwick Place, Edinburgh.
7. The plan, production No. 6, is a plan having marked thereon the position of the signs erected in the Central Edinburgh area by virtue of the said Edinburgh Corporation Tollcross Area (Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964.
8. The letter, production No. 11, is a letter from the Town Clerk, Edinburgh, to Messrs J. & A. Hastie, 43 York Place, Edinburgh, the respondent's law agents, and in terms thereof the Corporation of Edinburgh have not asked for any authorisation to erect signs in connection with the said Edinburgh Corporation Tollcross Area (Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964, from the Secretary of State.
9. The sketches, productions Nos. 1 and 2, are sketches showing the type of sign used in parking zone areas. 10. George Street, Edinburgh, is a parking meter zone area authorised by the Secretary of State in virtue of the powers granted to him by section 85 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
11. The signs used to indicate that George Street is a parking meter zone conform to those shown in productions Nos. 1 and 2, they were authorised by the Secretary of State, the letter, production No. 3, contains the approval, and the letter, production No. 4, is from the Scottish Home Department to the Town Clerk's Department in regard to signs for the George Street zone.
12. The signs shown in productions Nos. 7 and 8, are similar in shape to those erected for the George Street zone but they do not have the words \"Meter Parking Only\" the days and times are different and there are no loose boards hung *307 on the George Street zone signs bearing the words \"No Waiting Except As Authorised by Tollcross Area Traffic Control Order\" .
13. The said loose boards are made of hardboard, the background is white with black lettering.
14. On 12th November 1964 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. the respondent left her motor car, registered number 9016 SC in High Riggs on the south side thereof, for a period of twenty minutes.
I found the respondent not guilty for the reasons which are given in the second opinion attached hereto.

The question of law for the opinion of the Court was:
\"Upon the foregoing facts was I entitled to find the respondent not guilty?\"
The case was heard before the High Court of Justiciary on 24th June 1965.

Argued for Appellant.--It was conceded that the signs erected in High Riggs did not comply with the regulations prescribed by the Minister under section 51 of the principal Act. (i) The respondent was charged with a contravention of article 7 of the Order. There was no question of mens rea and she had admittedly left her car in High Riggs for a period of twenty minutes. The terms of article 7 were absolute: Anderson v. Rose, 1919 J.C. 20, 1919 2 S.L.T. 86; Howman v. Russell, 1923 J.C. 32, 1923 S.L.T. 336; and Mitchell v. Morrison, 1938 J.C. 64, 1938 S.L.T. 201 (ii) as to knowledge was required, it could be inferred. The question of what was adequate notice was not dealt with by the sheriff-substitute: Macdonald on The Criminal Law of Scotland, 5th edition, page 1. (iii) The erection of signs under the Road Traffic Act, 1960 was not a necessary preliminary for contravention of the order. Regulation 15 (c) was accordingly ultra vires. Failure to do something after an order had been made could not affect the validity of the order. (iv) In any event traffic signs in the regulations did not mean the same as traffic signs under the 1960 Act. There was no definition of traffic signs in the 1961 Regulations. The definition was contained in the regulations themselves.

Argued for Respondent.--Dole was required when a person was convicted of a criminal offence, Mitchell v. Morrison (supra). (i) The 1964 Order did not create any offence and no penalty was specified in it. The problem was to apply the principles of Mitchell v. Morrison to the 1960 Act. Section 26 (7) assumed a duly published order under section 29 (2) and Regulation 15 (c) of the 1961 Regulations. Parliament contemplated publication as part and parcel of the order. The traffic signs were manifestly inadequate as the essential information was missing. (ii) Prima facie the term \"traffic signs\"should have the same meaning as in the principal Act. In terms of section 51 the signs conveyed either information or warnings. The signs envisaged by Regulation 15 (c) had to conform to the regulations made under section 51 (2) of the principal Act. Counsel also referred to Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 160.
On 25th June 1965 the Court answered the question in the affirmative and refused the appeal.

The Lord Justice-General (Clyde).
This is a stated case which raises quite an important issue in regard to traffic signs in relation to offences regarding traffic orders. The respondent was charged with a contravention of article 7 of the Edinburgh Corporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964. I shall refer to this order hereafter as the 1964 Order. The sheriff-substitute held that she was not guilty and this appeal has been taken by the prosecutor against that decision.

Article 7 of the Order provides, inter alia, that no person shall cause or permit any vehicle to wait in any of the lengths of road specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Order between certain hours and on certain days. In the Schedule, one of the lengths of roads specified is High Riggs (whole street). It is not in dispute that the respondent did leave her car in the street during a non-permitted period. The main contention for the Crown was that this undisputed fact, together with the terms of the 1964 Order, was sufficient to justify the conviction of the respondent.

But, in my opinion, this is too superficial a view of the situation. The 1964 Order does not, by itself, create any offence nor warrant any penalty. It is a piece of delegated legislation valid only in so far as authorised by the statute under which it is executed, namely sections 26 and 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. It is in section 26 (2) of the 1960 Statute and not in the 1964 Order that the offence is created and a penalty authorised. It is, therefore, necessary to consider what was the offence which Parliament was creating.

The offence (see section 26 (7)) was an offence against a traffic regulation order. The requisites of such an order are set out in section 26 of the next three following sections (see the opening words in section 26 (1)). Section 29 (2) of the Act, inter alia, provides that where a traffic regulation order is made by a local authority, the local authority shall publish in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate minister, notice of the making and effect of the order. Such regulations have in fact been made and are the Traffic Regulation Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1961, No. 669. These regulations expressly purport to be made in the exercise of the power conferred by section 29 of the 1960 Act. Paragraph 15 of these Regulations, inter alia, provides: \"After an order has been made by a council\" (i.e. in the present case the Corporation) \"the council shall ... (c.) forthwith take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to cause to be erected on or near to the said roads, traffic signs in such positions as the council may consider to *308 be requisite for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is given to persons using the said roads.\" It was argued to us that Regulation 15 was ultra vires but it seems to me clearly to be within the powers conferred by Parliament by section 29 (2) of the 1960 Act.

I quite recognise that when Parliament creates a new offence by statute it may so frame the duty on the members of the public that an offence can be committed even though there is no negligence on the part of that member of the public, no mens rea and no knowledge even of the existence of the new statutory duty. But that is not a situation which is lightly to be presumed and the burden would be on the Crown to satisfy the Court that the duty created by the statute is of this absolute character (Mitchell v. Morrison, 1938 J.C, 64, per Lord Justice-General Normand, at page 71, 1938 S.L.T. 201): (compare Anderson v. Rose, 1919 J.C. 20, 1919 2 S.L.T. 86; Howman v. Russell, 1913 J.C. 32, 1923 S.L.T. 336; Hunter v. Clark, 1956 J.C. 59, 1956 S.L.T. 188, and Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 160). But from the statutory provisions in the present case to which I have already referred it seems quite clear that in this case Parliament never intended to impose any absolute obligation at all. It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise. Apart altogether from persons familiar with the restrictions, visitors or long-distance travellers could not reasonably be expected to know of the existence of the restrictions in any particular street and it is only natural therefore that Parliament required adequate notice of the restriction on the site before an offence against these traffic regulations could be charged and a penalty exacted.

The next question therefore is whether in this case the notice required by Regulation 15 (c) was given. The notice required is to take the form of \"traffic signs\". There is no further definition in the regulations of what is meant by \"traffic signs\" and one is, therefore, driven back to the statute under which the regulations were made for a definition of these words. The definition is contained in section 51 of the 1960 Act. Unless there had been some restricted meaning given in the regulations to the words \"traffic signs\" it is necessary, according to ordinary rules of construction, that the words as used in the Regulations of 1961 which were made under the Act must have the same meaning as these words in the Act itself. But it is clear that the signs erected at High Riggs did not conform to the requirements of a traffic sign as defined in section 51 and the regulations made by the Secretary of State under that section. There is no provision in the Act or in the regulations for a different kind of traffic sign not authorised by the minister.

On the whole matter, therefore, in my opinion, there was a duty imposed on the Corporation as an essential part of the validity of the Traffic Regulation Order to publicise the order in a certain way, namely by erecting certain specified traffic signs. The requisite signs were not erected and the offence charged, which is a purely statutory offence, was not therefore committed. For the existence of a valid traffic regulation order in conformity with the Act and Regulations is a sine qua non of the establishment of an offence against the order.

The question put to us therefore, in my opinion, should be answered in the affirmative.

Lord Carmont.

I agree with your Lordship.

Lord Migdale.

In view of what your Lordship has said I do not find it necessary to repeat the facts in detail. Two things are clear (first) the signs erected do not conform to the pattern and colour laid down by Statutory Instrument 13 of 1957 and (second) the signs erected are ambiguous.

If the appellant is right neither of these things matter. His argument is that the Tollcross Area Traffic Order is by itself effective to impose an absolute prohibition against waiting in High Riggs. As the respondent's car did wait there for some twenty minutes she was liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20. The test to be applied is an objective one and the fact that the respondent claimed she had no mens rea was irrelevant. This contention was rejected by the sheriff-substitute and, in my view, he was right to do so. Ignorance that a statutory regulation has been breached is no defence if the obligation is an absolute one (see Lord Justice-General Normand in Mitchell v. Morrison, 1938 J.C. 64, at page 71, 1938 S.L.T. 201). The question whether the obligation is an absolute one, or is qualified in some way so as to imply that the breach must have been committed \"knowingly\", is to be decided by considering both the language of the order creating the offence and the subject matter with which it deals. In the case of Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 160, P.C. Lord Evershed referred (at page 172) with approval to a passage by Mr Justice Wright in Sherras' case ([1895] 1 Q.B. 918, at page 921). \"There is a presumption that mens rea or evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the Act, is an essential ingredient in every offence, but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals and both must be considered\". I think this accords with our law in Scotland and that the subject matter must be looked at as well as the phraseology.

The appellant contended that the words of the order were unambiguous and that paragraph (7) imposed an absolute prohibition against waiting in High Riggs between certain hours on certain days. Once that order was signed and sealed it came *309 into force and although it required to be published once in a local newspaper and the Edinburgh Gazette no sign boards required to be erected at the entry to High Riggs.
The subject matter of this order is the regulation of traffic in the Tollcross area of the city. This requires that traffic shall proceed in one direction along another street. Certain turns are prohibited in some streets and waiting is banned in yet another group of streets. If the appellant is right this well regulated flow of traffic is to be achieved by nothing more than signing an order in the City Chambers. Common sense, if nothing more, requires that there should be adequate and intelligible notices at the important points on the streets concerned so that those who do not read the Scotsman or subscribe to the Edinburgh Gazette may know what to do when they get to Tollcross. The fact that notices of a kind were in fact put up suggests that this aspect of the problem was not overlooked.

However the question is, in my view, resolved if one turns from the order to the Road Traffic Act. 1960. Section 26 of that Act is the statutory warrant for the making of the order in question. Counsel for the appellant said one must not look beyond that section and in particular we must not have regard to section 29 (2) of the Act because it deals only with the procedure of making the order and not with steps to make it effective. For my part I do not know why I should not have regard to the statute as a whole. Section 29 provides that where a traffic regulation is made by a local authority \"the local authority shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the minister, notice of the making and effect of the order\". The Traffic Regulation Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961 (S.I. 1961, No. 669) were made under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Regulation 15 requires that after the order has been made the council shall take certain steps. These include giving notice in the press and in the Gazette and shall \"(c) forthwith take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to cause to be erected on the roads, traffic signs ... for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is given to persons using the said roads\".

In my opinion the erection of traffic signs at the locus is properly required by the regulations as part of the procedure to make known the effect of the order. In deference to counsel for the appellant's contention, I would point out that the primary meaning of the words \"published\" is not confined to printing in a newspaper but is \"to make known publicly or generally\" (see S.O.D., Volume II, page 1615).
If I am right it means that the order is not effective unless and until the council complies with Regulation 15 (c) and erects road signs at the locus. Signs were erected but they were not the proper ones nor were they clear.

Section 51 of the Road Traffic Act deals with Road Signs and Statutory Instrument No. 13 of 1957. Regulation 8 deals with \"prohibitory signs\" and defines their form and colour. It is conceded in this case that the signs erected do not match the pattern laid down. Accordingly, it would appear that the council has not done all that it is required to do regarding the order and cannot claim that the respondent is liable to the penalty imposed by section 26 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Even if I am wrong regarding the application of section 51 of the Act and the Statutory Instruments of 1957 and take the view that the Corporation is entitled to design signs to its own pattern, I do not regard the one shown in production No. 7 as giving adequate information to persons using the High Riggs. If it had said \"No waiting\" or \"No waiting in this Street\"it might have had that effect but all it says is that the driver is entering a \"controlled zone\" and can only wait if authorised to do so by the order. How is he to know if his \"wait\" is \"prohibited\" or \"authorised\"?

At any rate it is clear that the notice does not impose on the driver an absolute obligation not to wait in High Riggs.

For these reasons, I think the question should be answered in the affirmative.

Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 QBD 4th Feb 1971

4 FEBRUARY 1971 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DAVIES v HEATLEY [1971] R.T.R 145


LORD PARKER CJ, MELFORD STEVENSON and COOKE JJ

Traffic sign—Road marking—Sign not complying with regulations—Intermittent white line between two continuous while lines not prescribed distance apart—Whether 'prescribed' sign—Failure to comply with indication—Whether offence—Road Traffic Act 1960s 14(1)—Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s 54(2)—-Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 reg 23(1)(2)(, diagram 1013 (as amended by Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966).

Section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 provides:

'Where . . . a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type . . , has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving ... a vehicle who ... ( fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable' [to penalty],

Section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 provides:

'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations . . .'

Regulation 23 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 (as amended)
provides:

'(1) A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding paragraph . . . shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013. (2) The requirements conveyed ... shall be . . . ( . . . every vehicle . . . shall be so driven as to keep the . . . 'line on the right hand . . . side of the vehicle.'

Diagram 1013 provides:

'...Longitudinal lines to indicate ... the requirements... prescribed by regulation 23(2) ...(See Direction 5A)'.

A bend in a road bore a traffic marking consisting of continuous double white lines and between them the remains of an intermittent white line with which the road had previously been marked; the distance between the continuous double white lines differed from the distance prescribed by diagram 1013 and regulation 23(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964, as amended by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966 and section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. The defendant, who drove a motor vehicle at the bend, did not keep to the left of the marking, and he was charged with contravening section 14(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 by failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign. The justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign and that, although it did not strictly comply with the regulations, it was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore, binding on him, and they convicted him.

On appeal against conviction :

Held, allowing the appeal, that the scheme of the legislation confined the offence to failure to comply with the prescribed sign (p 148E); and that, since the traffic marking did not conform strictly to the sign as prescribed by the regulation, no offence had been committed, and the conviction would be quashed.



Cases referred to in the judgment:

James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676: [1967] 2 WLR 1239; [1967] 1 All EH 1048.DC
Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320. DC
Reg. v Priest [1961] OWN 166

Additional case cited in argument: '
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305

Case stated by Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe

On 30 April 1970 an information was preferred by the prosecutor, Ivor Heatley, against the defendant, Charles Russel Davies, that he, on 9 March 1970 at Lianguicke in Glamorgan being the person driving a vehicle, namely Morris motor lorry, registration number 190 DWN on a road, at Gelligron Hill, Pontardawe, did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely, did fail to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed on the left of a continuous white line, contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The justices heard the information on 29 May 1970 and found the following facts:

At 3.40 pm on Monday 9 March 1970 Brian Williams, a police constable of the South Wales constabulary was on panda patrol duty in Gelligron Road, Pontardawe, and travelling down a hill in the direction of traffic lights. Proceeding in front of the constable were two heavily laden motor lorries travelling at a very slow speed. As a right-hand bend was being negotiated the constable saw the vehicle directly in front of him, Morris motor lorry registration number 190 DWN, pull out to its offside of the road, and in doing so cross continuous double white lines placed in the centre of the road. The vehicle then accelerated past the front lorry. Motor lorry registration number 190 DWN was stopped, and the constable spoke to the driver, the defendant, and told him that it was an offence to cross double continuous white lines placed on a road. When asked for an explanation the defendant made no reply. When told that he would be reported by the constable for the consideration of the question of proceedings being taken against the defendant for failing to conform to a traffic sign he, after caution, made no reply. The traffic sign in question was as shown in a photograph produced to the court and exhibited to the case and consisted of two continuous white lines with an intermittent white line in the centre. The sign was placed on the road at sometime in 1970, and the constable confirmed in evidence that the photograph showed the sign as it existed on the date of the alleged offence. It was contended by the defendant that there was no case for him to answer in so far as no offence in Law had been committed as the traffic sign in question was not a lawful sign within the meaning of section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964.

The Justices were referred to the following cases:
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305
Miners v Gillard [1950] WN 347.DC
Reg v Priest [1961] OWN 166

On a case to answer being found the defendant elected to give evidence and stated that, as he was proceeding down the hill, around bends, he saw certain road markings on the road, namely, continuous while lines with an intermittent white line in the centre of same. He stated that he may have crossed the lines but thought he had not, the justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white lines, the sign, which was situated on an 'S' bend, was clearly visible and recognisable and therefore, binding on the defendant. They accordingly, convicted the defendant and he was was fined £10, his licence was endorsed, and he was ordered to pay 10s costs.

The defendant appealed.

The question for the opinion of the Court was whether, in view of the justices' finding that the defendant fully appreciated the nature of the sign in question, they were correct in Law to decide that the intermittent white line between the continuous white lines did not affect the validity of the sign.

Anthony Kenny for the defendant
B R Oliver the prosecutor

Lord Parker CJ This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe, whereby they convicted the defendant of an offence contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, in that he did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely, that he failed to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed on the left of a continuous white line. There was evidence from the police that, on a bend in the road where there were two white lines, the defendant driving a heavily laden motor lorry went over the double white line in order to pass a slower moving lorry in front of him. Although, after the rejection of a submission of no case, the defendant did not admit that he had crossed the double white line, it is quite clear that, if nothing more was said, this is a plain case for a conviction. However, the matter does not end there, because the point taken before the justices and before this Court is that the double white line in this case did not conform to the type of white line laid down by the legislation.
A photograph is attached to the case which shows quite clearly that between the double white lines there is an old intermittent line, in other words it seems pretty certain that at one time on this bend there was the ordinary intermittent white line, but a time came when, as it were, superimposed on that and on either side of it were put these double white lines. The justices expressed their view, a view with which I have every sympathy, and one which could be said to be a common sense view, as follows:

'We were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white line, the sign, which was situated on an "S" bend, was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore, binding on the defendant'.

I have come to the conclusion, though with some reluctance, that the justices were wrong. The legislation in question makes it abundantly clear that there must be strict conformity with the traffic signs which are prescribed. One begins with section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which provides, so far as it is material:

Where...a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type.... has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who (a) neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the execution of his duty, or (b) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable on summary conviction . ..' to a penalty.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 further provides by section 54(2): 'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as aforesaid". The regulations in question here are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964. Regulation 23(1) of those regulations provides:

'A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding paragraph...shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013', and though it is unnecessary to read it, regulation 23(2)(6) deals, among other matters, with signs of the type in question here, namely, the double white line. When one turns to diagram 1013, one finds laid down the markings, with which we are all familiar, of the double white line, and it provides what the width of each double white line should be and the distance between them. It is only necessary to add that the distance between them was in fact varied by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966.

Accordingly, as it seems to me, the scheme of the legislation here is to confine the offence to a case where there has been failure to comply with the prescribed sign. One asks, therefore, here whether this was the prescribed sign. I thought at one point that it might be said that the old intermittent line, on a sensible approach, forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different from that prescribed by the regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me, and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach of the justices, it is impossible to say that an offence was committed.

The Court has been referred to a number of authorities, including — and I find it unnecessary to refer to them — James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676 and Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320, cases which were analogous in this sense, that it was held in each case that there was no offence of the type there alleged unless there had been complete compliance with the regulations.

Indeed, the only case to which the Court has been referred, and speaking for myself I am grateful for Mr Kenny's researches, which goes the other way is Reg. v Priest in Ontario, Canada [1961] OWN 166. It was a case in the Court of Appeal, and Roach J in giving the judgment of the court said, at p 168: 'On the other hand. a top sign that complies, though not strictly but so substantially with the regulations as reasonably to indicate that it is authoritative and erected by the competent authority in intended compliance with its power under the Act, in my opinion is equally binding on the driver, provided that he could have seen it if he was keeping a proper look out".
It is, however, to be observed there that the scheme of the legislation was substantially different. The Act in that case, the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O, 1960, c. 172, provided that a driver on approaching a stop sign at an intersection, 'shall bring the car or vehicle to a full stop...', and then the Act went on to provide that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for the erection of signs on any highways and prescribing the type of signs to be erected and the location of each type of sign. One sees at ones that the Act did not make it an offence to fail to comply with a 'prescribed stop sign', but only with a stop sign. It seems to me that under that scheme of legislation it was permissible to take the view that the Court of Appeal took there and the justices took in the present case. Under the scheme of legislation, however, with which we are concerned, I see no escape from saying that here no offence was committed, and accordingly I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.

Melford Stevenson J I agree.

Cooke J I also agree.

Appeal allowed with costs

Conviction quashed

Solicitors for the defendants: Tuck & Mann & Geffen S T D Jones & Co for Price Williams & Partners. Llandeilo
Solicitors for the prosecutor: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co for R H C Rowlands. Glamorgan
Reported by Mrs Celia Fox Barrister-at-Law

Number's up for 'Enforcers with no targets' myth

The Scotsman
ALAN RODEN (aroden@edinburghnews.com)

IT'S taken nearly five years - but it appears the truth has finally emerged. Every motorist in the city suspected it - but were constantly told Edinburgh's parking Enforcers do not have targets for the number of fines they hand out.
Oh no, their bosses told the press and public, we don't mind if attendants complete their shifts without ticketing a single driver.
Well, not according to Jake Dacascos. The former parking supervisor lifted the lid last week on the individual and area-wide targets set by his superiors.
He claimed Enforcers are hauled in front of their bosses if they don't fine at least ten motorists a day.
If any doubts were in my mind as to the authenticity of his claims, half-a-dozen current and former Enforcers were straight on the phone to me - the story is 100 per cent accurate, they said.
The council is now rightly worried.
The Evening News today reveals that every single parking attendant and their managers will be individually interviewed by council officials this week in the wake of our exclusive story.
Council leader Ewan Aitken has warned he will "come down like a ton of bricks" on the contractor, Central Parking System (CPS), if the allegations are proved accurate. I hope he means that.
The administration may have been naive if it didn't believe some form of targets existed, but at least it was uncharacteristically swift to order an investigation when Mr Dacascos' claims were published.
Providing the workers with a guarantee of anonymity is an essential part of the council's probe. That is the only way to find out what is really happening, because attendants are strictly banned from divulging any inside information - to the public or the press.
CPS has been enforcing the parking restrictions in Edinburgh since 2001 and it's vital we are told what has been going on behind the scenes for the past five years.
Some might say it's now irrelevant, because CPS is to be kicked out before the end of the year, but I disagree.
While it may be the managers setting the alleged quotas - something I trust NCP will firmly outlaw when it takes over in December - there will clearly be some members of staff transferring to the new operation with ingrained targets on their mind.
A glance through the documents handed to the Evening News by Mr Dacascos shows there are some Enforcers clearly out to top the ticket league table.
C Brown - whoever you are - I hope for your sake that each and every one of the 504 fines you gave to Edinburgh citizens in March was legitimate. The same applies to S Robertson (372) and P Hill (298).
Every now and again, we hear about a ticket that quite clearly should not have been issued - and we usually tell everyone about it in the Evening News.
But, I do wonder how many motorists fork out £30 or even £60 to pay for a fine they should never had received, without realising it?
It can be no coincidence that the large number of Enforcers past and present that I speak to through my job all tell me similar tales: the time on manually-written tickets altered; photos taken at misleading angles to obscure the true picture; foreign number plates created out of thin air.
How many of the 20-odd thousand tickets issued on George Street last year were legitimate?
Nobody is accusing CPS of telling staff to go out there and cheat the motorists, but attendants say they are under such pressure that they sometimes they have no choice.
Some of the under-hand tactics were first revealed in this very column a few months ago. A former Enforcer told me he watched staff take photographs of dashboards with no pay-and-display tickets and then issue fines - even though the tickets had clearly just fallen to the floor.
The stories from other ex-employees who have revealed yet more unscrupulous tactics in today's Evening News are likely to generate considerable debate.
After all, this city has a rather unusual obsession with parking.
Take last Friday, for example - a whole host of national newspapers printed figures showing the number of fines issued on George Street.
Figures that were six months out of date, and had already been printed in this newspaper last May.
And the continuing saga over the roll-out of more parking restrictions in suburban Edinburgh is likely to continue dominating headlines for months to come.
I hope NCP knows what is in store when it comes to Edinburgh this December.

City's parking nightmares: Parking Fiasco II

Norwich Evening News
DAVID POWLES, NAOMI CANTON

Hundreds of motorists will escape parking fines in Norwich after a printing blunder on the tickets.
As exclusively revealed in the Evening News earlier this month, Norwich City Council was already aware it facing having to write off thousands of pounds in unpaid fines after a legal problem - and now City Hall has officially admitted the blunder.
The news means Norwich City Council will lose about £75,000 in revenue from fines because of the discovery of a technical error on its tickets which means that drivers caught parking illegally up to August 29 with outstanding fines will not have to pay.
The council was adamant those who did pay promptly would not get a refund despite its glitch.
Drivers parking illegally are given £60 fines though this is halved if they pay within two weeks.
City council hastily changed its tickets on August 29 following a High Court hearing which indicated that failure to state clearly the date on which a ticket was issued and the date of the offence meant the ticket was void.
But Simon Nicholls, from Belmore's solicitors, said: “If these tickets have been found to be flawed, then arguably somebody who has paid the fine should be able to go back to the city council in good faith and ask them to quash it.
“If the council doesn't do that, it would be open to someone who is aggrieved to go the High Court and ask for the decision to be judicially reviewed.
“What the council should do in good faith is give all the parking fines back. It's a no win situation for the poor person who has paid their fine and a victory for the person who hasn't.”
Alan Waters, the council's executive member for resources, said the decision would affect councils up and down the country.
“We acted in good faith when we first produced these tickets and we are very disappointed,” he said.
Traffic wardens issued 35,549 penalty charge notices in the city between April 1, 2005, and March this year. The council made a £320,000 profit in 2004-05 which was ploughed back to Norfolk County Council and used to fund roadworks and traffic improvements in the Norwich area. The news comes after a Freedom Of Information request revealed the city's Prince of Wales Road was one of the worst in England for fining motorists.
Drivers had more than £117,960 of tickets slapped on their vehicles in the past year and there were only nine other streets in the country with more fines.
The other three streets in the city where motorists got the highest number of parking tickets in the past year were Colegate where 1,669 tickets were handed out, Cathedral Street where 1,104 were issued and St Benedicts Street where 862 fixed penalties were given drivers.

City's parking nightmares: Parking Fiasco I

Norwich Evening News
DAVID POWLES, NAOMI CANTON
28 October 2006 09:15

David Jervis, with his wife Janet, has welcomed the decision not to scrap free parking for the disabled.

Councillors have thrown out controversial plans to withdraw free parking for disabled people in parts of the city.
Norwich City Council's scrutiny committee has decided not to scrap free parking in its surface car parks for blue badge holders.
Members have also announced an investigation into claims the blue badge scheme is being abused by people who are not disabled.
The council wanted to scrap its policy which allows blue badge holders to park anywhere in surface car parks in the city centre. Instead, they would either have to pay or compete for the few designated blue badge spots. The proposals caused anger among pensioners, while shopkeepers said the move, coupled with increased prices for park and ride and some car parks, would deter people from coming to the city.
The scrutiny panel has voted unanimously for the changes, aimed at saving £20,000, to be dropped.
Adrian Ramsay, leader of the Green Party group, said: “I think it is extremely important that as a council we are inclusive and this means giving disabled people good access to the city centre.”
Hereward Cooke, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “It was decided that we needed to support the disabled community and that this proposal did not do that.”
The blue badge scheme is managed by Norfolk County Council and applicants are supposed to meet certain criteria.
However, councillors decided to instigate a review into the system amid reports people give erroneous information to obtain the cards.
Mr Ramsay added: “There are fears that some people are able to abuse the system. If there are people who are not disabled but have a blue badge and park in the designated spaces that might be stopping the real disabled from getting a space.”
David Jervis, 76, from Saracen Road, Hellesdon, who has a blue badge which he uses to come to the city every week with his wife Janet, 73, welcomed both decisions.
He said: “I think this is very good news because they have got to support disabled people. I would like to see them have 10 or 12 spaces close together in the city for blue badge holders because at the minute they are all over the place.
“It would surprise me if people got them when they shouldn't because the checks are extensive.”
Harold Bodmer, director of adult social services at Norfolk County Council, said: “Blue badge applicants are asked to provide proof that a badge is needed, must meet the application criteria and provide supporting evidence. If there is any question over an application, contact is made directly with the applicant's GP.”

Drivers are going parking mad

The Sun

DRIVERS are exploding with PARKING rage as neighbours battle for a space for their motors, a poll revealed yesterday.
Many Britons go to extreme lengths to bag a spot near their homes and are driven mad when they are foiled.
Motorists deliberately block cars for pinching their spots, leave angry notes on windscreens and even hit parked motors then drive away, insurers Direct Line found.
And 27 per cent think the space outside their home is automatically their own and no one else should park there.
Direct Line’s Emma Holyer said: “Parking is a major issue today.
“We’re all fed-up paying excessive charges for parking in town and then finding we can’t park anywhere near home.”

Used: scrapping old cars

Mash bangers - or pay up
Auto Express

Worn-out old cars must be disposed of properly, or you could face prosecution
by Ross Pinnock




Scrapping old cars is a hassle – but fail to do it properly and you could face unpaid parking tickets, fines or even prosecution.
The new End of Life Vehicles (ELV) directive is now in force, and it makes the last owner of a car responsible for ensuring it is disposed of in an environmentally friendly way at an approved facility.
The changes are expected to affect around two million motorists a year. However, the good news is that following the rules makes it impossible for anyone else to use your car after you’ve handed over the keys.
If you take your vehicle to an unauthorised dismantler, you risk it being put back on the road – and with your details still in the logbook, you could face paying for parking tickets and fines incurred by the person using it.
A spokesman for the website Recycleyourcar.co.uk explained: “You will be issued with a certificate which acts as proof that a vehicle has been destroyed – and this means the owner’s car tax and other oblig­ations are at an end. Everyone knows illegal operators are rife in the ELV sector, so it’s up to motorists to ensure their car is properly disposed of.”
Drivers who fail to get the necessary paperwork and whose model is subsequently abandoned face a £200 fine from local authorities, while illegal dumpers could get a £2,500 fine and a prison sentence.

Edinburgh street generates £1.2m in parking fines

The Scotsman
ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT (adalton@scotsman.com)

DRIVERS parking in George Street in Edinburgh were issued with parking fines to the value of £1.2 million last year, it was reported yesterday.
With 20,870 tickets issued, the city-centre street was one of the most ticketed in Britain, according to a survey by Channel 4 News.
The popular shopping area was only topped by Lordship Lane, in Tottenham, north London, where £3.2 million worth of tickets were issued.
However, the figures were estimated on the basis of £60 fines being issued in the year to March, and many drivers were fined only £30 because they paid within two weeks.
The total fines paid and still outstanding for George Street was £740,000. The council said this was because most motorists paid up within 14 days.
In Glasgow, Sauchiehall Street was Scotland's second most ticketed street, where tickets worth £378,180 were issued.

Two streets top £1.6m in parking fines

The Herald
by Rob Robertson

More parking tickets are issued to motorists in Edinburgh's George Street and Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow than anywhere else outside London.
A survey for the last financial year claimed £1.25m worth of fines were handed out in George Street, higher than anywhere else in Britain for that period. More than £1m worth of tickets were issued in Newington Green Road, Islington, with Sauchiehall Street coming third with £378,180. The worst figure in recent years was for Lordship Lane in Tottenham, north London, where motorists had to pay more than £3.18m in 2004/05.
The survey figures for Channel 4 are based on the higher fine of £60 rather than the £30 figure which is on offer when drivers pay within a fortnight, and does not take into account how many pay the lower figure.
Scottish motorists are suffering as much as their English counterparts when it comes to being hit in the pocket by over-zealous traffic wardens.
The most ticketed UK streets in 2005/06 were George Street, Newington Green Road in London and Sauchiehall Street followed by Alum Rock Road, in Birmingham.
Other Scottish hotspots although not included in the survey, include Golden Square, Aberdeen; Church Street, Inverness; George Street, Perth; Beckford Street, Hamilton and Baxter Wynd, Falkirk.
The five most ticketed streets in Glasgow for the financial year were Sauchiehall Street where 6303 tickets were issued; Bath Street (5042); Kilmarnock Road (4518); Byres Road (4064), and West Campbell Street (3885). The total brought in by wardens in these streets was £581,000 down on the 2004/05 figure of £716,000.
A council spokesman said: "It is of little surprise that our busiest thoroughfares sees the largest number of parking violations. If motorists do not park illegally, then no penalty will be sought."
A spokeswoman for Edinburgh City Council defended the high volume of tickets in George Street.
She said: "We have to make sure there is a high turnover for traders in the area. We have 10,000 on-street and 10,000 off-street parking spaces in the city, but people want to park in George Street because it's right in the centre of town."
Both Glasgow and Edinburgh council officials said that although the original parking fine was 60, most people took advantage of the lower £30 option.
But the figures show clearly that major roads in both Edinburgh and Glasgow are being hit hard by traffic wardens.
Scottish actor Tom Conti, a long-time campaigner against parking charges and co-founder of the London Motorists' Action Group, said: "If some councils are saying they don't make money from this, you wonder why these people get jobs."
Neil Greig, head of policy with the AA Motoring Trust in Scotland, said: "Millions is being raised from parking fines but I haven't seen any independent evidence showing that traffic management or traffic flow has got better."

Man takes parking grudge to the top

This is Hertfordshire

A MOTORIST is refusing to pay a parking fine in protest against the double yellow lines in his street.
Simon Lascelles is threatening to fight the case through a High Court judicial review, the Lord Chancellor and even the European Union.
He said: "It will take years and cost them a lot of money to get through this legal process.
"It would cost a lot less to remove the double yellow lines."
He said that after residents had submitted a petition asking for the lines in Ramsbury Road, St Albans, to be removed two years ago, highways officers had offered to review the situation, although nothing further had been heard from them.
A county council spokesman said parking rules had to be enforced, whether the people agreed with them or not.
Parking restrictions can only be removed by a formal "traffic order", which has to be advertised by press notice for a set period to allow people to comment or object.
She said the district council wanted parking restrictions in Ramsbury Road to allow easy access for its refuse vehicles.
A meeting is scheduled between the two authorities to discuss parking restrictions in several St Albans streets including Ramsbury Road.

Parking chiefs scrap ‘ridiculous charges’

Your Local Guardian
By Cara Lee

Parking contract over: Councillors Lib Peck and Nigel Hasleden

Lambeth Council has scrapped its unfair parking system which gave traffic wardens incentives for issuing as many tickets as possible.

The borough's notorious cash for parking tickets scheme, in existence since the former Conservative and Liberal Democrat council signed a deal with contractors Control Plus in August 2003, meant traffic wardens faced penalties if they did not hand out at least 12 tickets during their eight-hour shifts.
The move caused anger within the community and a massive 70 per cent of fines were challenged in the first six months. Revenue from parking fines rose by £4 million within just one year. And the Streatham Guardian recently reported on the ever increasing number of tickets dished out in Lambeth, which reached an all time high last year with a whopping 700 fines per day.
Now all that is set to change after the council renegotiated its contract with Control Plus to remove financial incentives for issuing tickets and add initiatives to encourage them to treat motorists fairly.
Within the new terms the contractor will be rewarded if more traffic wardens help and respect motorists but they will be penalised for rude behaviour or unfairly issuing tickets. Mystery shoppers will also rate the attendants' behaviour.
Cabinet member for environment and culture Councillor Lib Peck said: "This is a fresh start on parking policy. We have listened to residents who told us that they were unhappy with the old system where parking attendants were often overzealous, and we are putting in place a policy that is firm but fair."
Councillor Nigel Haselden, deputy cabinet member for parking and transport, added: "The new arrangements will be better for motorists, and for parking attendants, who do an important and sometimes difficult job and too often face abuse."
John Mulvey felt the wrath of the unfair parking contract when he was issued a ticket after yellow lines were painted by contractors underneath his parked car.
"This is great news," he said. "Traffic wardens should be there to ensure the free movement of traffic, rather than for punishment. Wardens have used sneaky tactics to justify giving tickets but now they can do their jobs without meeting ridiculous targets."

Sunderland Echo - The Letters page

Sunderland Echo
Saturday 7th October 06

Bring back trained traffic wardens
Well done to the BBC revealing the type of racist people our elected council contract to keep our city traffic flowing (NCP). I was outraged to see them having digs at the ethnic population of Sunderland and totally disgraced to hear them calling disabled people.
I was happy that NCP had suspended five of them pending investigation, but the proof is there in front of your eyes. We all saw them and heard them.
If the council has any backbone at all instead of trying to save a few quid, they should pull the plug on NCP. Give the contract to someone else. Better still give us our traffic wardens back. They understood the law and parking law! I had more respect for a police-run traffic warden than I have for jumped up racists in a uniform. It makes my blood boil to see my council tax getting wasted.
Nice one Sunderland (not).
Thank god I'm retiring next year and emigrating to a country that respects you for who you are, not what ethnic group you are.
A Fed Up Resident

Make 'em apologise
I am furious at the image these idiots have created of Sunderland.
Even more furious about the comments made by one individual concerning the "spakka".
As the grandmother of a spastic teenager who suffers from cerebral palsy I can say that she may not be able to write her own name but has a much more exrensive vocabulary than any of these cowards who hide behind a uniform. She also is better mannered and to my mind has more brains in one of her deformed fingers than those parking attendants.
It would seem that the only qualifications for this post are to be virtually brain dead and foul mouthed. They should be made to issue a full apology for all their abusive comments.
M Graham,
Pallion

It's disgusting
I think it's disgusting and totally unacceptable when anyone ridicules or makes fun of disabled people. When such comments are made by supposedly responsible persons as parking attendants that makes it worse. Any guilty NCP staff should be named and shamed. They should also be made to publicly apologise.
Robert Finlay
Gayhurst Crescent
Sunderland

Opressive to trade
The parking regime in Sunderland since NCP took over is turning the town into a ghost town. I feel sorry for traders.
The council has a shortsighted view of making money out of motorists. People will go where parking is easier and with sympathetic parking attendants.
The racial harrassment and treatment of disabled motorists just makes matters worse. NCP and the council should be ashamed.
Shoral

Council loses parking appeal

This is Lancashire
By Staff Reporter

BURY Council has lost out in a bid to overturn a Prestwich solicitor's parking ticket victory - but is now considering another legal challenge.
Aubrey Isaacson is now calling on the council to admit that "enough is enough" and to stop spending public funds on fighting the case.
Mr Isaacson initially won his case over an "invalid" parking ticket at a hearing before the National Parking Adjudication Service in Manchester in August.
However, car parking bosses at the town hall launched an appeal against that decision and called for a review.
Earlier this week, the adjudicator rejected Bury Council's request and further criticised the authority for not amending its Traffic Regulation Orders following de-criminalisation of parking offences in 2002.
Bury Council, however, said they STILL believe they have a strong case against Mr Isaacson and are seeking legal advice on whether to proceed to a judicial review.
Mr Isaacson, who is now seeking recompense for his time and effort, which has so far reached more than £1,600 for his and a client's case. said: " I am Bury taxpayer and all I am asking is that they stop throwing good money after bad. The money that has been spent so far on this case, and what the legal department is proposing to continue to spend seems an absolute waste, when they are clearly wrong."
Coun John Byrne, executive member for transport, said: "The fact remains that Mr Isaacson did infringe the law when parking and I hope that we do get his parking fine. We still believe we have a case and if counsel confirms this then we will seek a judicial review. The adjudicator brought up points that had not been raised previously and that is what we objected to."
Following the adjudicators' decision, Bury Council were asked to set out their reasons in full, within 14 days.
However, they failed to comply to these guidelines and the adjudicator rejected their application for review on the grounds that they had not provided sufficient details of their argument.
Mr Isaacson said: "Bury bungles again! They couldn't even get this right. The adjudicator calls for commonsense when dealing with parking enforcment, but sadly, commonsense seems to have gone out of the window in the ever increasing search by local authorities for revenue form the motorist."
Mr Isaacson had received his parking ticket for not parking correctly within white lines on the Longfield Centre car park. After studying the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), he discovered that Bury Council should have stated on the ticket that it would be an offence if he failed to pay the Penalty Charge Notice.
However, when the case was heard at the National Parking Adjudication Service, it became apparent that the council was endorsing an invalid Traffic Regulation Order as parking offences had been decriminalised in 2002.
Mr Isaacson also won an appeal on behalf of his client Mr David Silver, who had received a ticket for not displaying his disabled badge correctly.
The adjudicator also rejected the council's application for review in Mr Silver's case for the same reasons and warned that the council should not have issued a ticket for failure to display.
Review adjudicator Stephen Knapp said: "It seems to me that the adjudicator is correct in his view that the council has made no effort to review or individually amend its TROs despite the fact that a simple mechanism is provided for this purpose. Given this simple procedure, it is difficult to understand why the council could not make the necessary modifications."

'Don't just accept parking fines, always check them out'

Maidenhead Advertiser

AN ANGRY driver was baffled to receive a parking fine following a brief half-hour visit to Homebase in Maidenhead.
Alan McQuhae was ordered to pay £80 by UK Parking Control, which is contracted by Legal and General, the landowners of the Stafferton Way site.
The retired engineer says he parked in the car park outside Homebase in Stafferton Way while he popped into the shop on Saturday, September 2.
The first he knew of the fine was when it landed on his doorstep in Old Mill Lane, Bray, last week.
Mr McQuhae, known to friends as Bill, said: “I thought it was from a scallywag trying it on.”
Staff at Homebase were sympathetic and service manager Alex Piercey contacted the company to get the fine cancelled.
Mr McQuhae is urging people not to take a fine lying down: “A lot of people will assume they have done something wrong and not check.
“Homebase staff were very helpful and said they are fed up with it.
“If they hadn’t been so kind I would never have gone back to Homebase again. It could affect their business.”
Mr Piercey told the Advertiser he and a number of staff have also had fines slapped on while they work. He said: “It has happened to about five members of staff. I am OK with it as long as they stick to the rules, but sometimes it seems to be taking the mick. It is a worry, but as far as I am aware this is the only customer I have dealt with.”

Bid to drive out parking zone

Hackney Gazette

RESIDENTS who claim they distrust a council consultation on parking restrictions have decided to put together their own opinion poll.
Rushmore Road residents in Lower Clapton have collected a 34-name petition against part of a proposed residents' parking scheme in the Homerton University Hospital area.
The campaigners claim their stretch of the road is not used by visitors to the hospital and that a current council consultation on the issue will ignore their views.
"I don't trust Hackney Council, I don't trust them at all," said Dr Chloe Evans, 35.
"I don't think they're going to take our views into account."
She added that while those living near the hospital might welcome the parking proposals, other residents were worried that they were being included unnecessarily.
Joyce Bennett, landlady of the Eclipse pub in nearby Elderfield Road, agreed that residents should not have to compensate for a lack of facilities at the hospital.
A council spokeswoman was certain that residents' views would be taken into account during the consultation.
The council has sent out letters to residents and is inviting replies until October 31.

Parking fines cost me my job, life and vehicle

Bromley Times
A TAXI driver is distraught after traffic wardens twice ticketed her for displaying her disabled parking badge incorrectly.
Bailiffs are now chasing Andrea Machin, 62, for £772.80, and have threatened to seize her car.
She said: "If they take my car I can't get about and more importantly I can't earn any money. I cannot walk very far and I cannot stand at all. My car is my lifeline."
Mrs Machin, from Brambledown, Hartley, received her first ticket from traffic wardens on April 4 in Chislehurst High Street.
Bromley council claimed her disabled badge was obscured by the clock she was using to show how long she had been parked.
"It was quite legally parked so I sent it back to them and said they must be joking.
"There was no way they couldn't tell it was a genuine disabled badge holder. All the details on the badge were legible."
On May 9, Mrs Machin was ticketed again in Ravensbourne Road, this time for displaying her parking badge face down.
It is amazing you can get fined for putting it the wrong way up. I didn't even bother to reply I was just so disgusted. Now it is going to cost me my job, my life and my car."
Mrs Machin, who has hip problems, did not contact the council over the fines because she was battling depression.
Now the two fines have been inflated to more than £700 with fees.
Bromley council has advised Mrs Machin to get in touch with them "with as much information as supports her case as possible".
A spokesman said: "We need to enforce parking restrictions fairly and reasonably for everybody, which includes disabled badge holders, and in both cases crucial details were obscured.
"The danger with simply ignoring a car that is apparently displaying a disabled badge is that we have no way of knowing at the time whether that badge is being used fraudulently or not."
patrick.clift@archant.co.uk